Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90%
improved by at least one letter grade.

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California

Description

Lecture 9 March 23, 2011 A. R v. Malmo-Levine; R vs. Caine 1. Background and case facts 2. Majority: Should the harm principle be recognized as a P.F.J? No. 3. Dissent: Should the principle The law cannot imprison someone who has done nothing wrong be a PFJ? Yes. B. Equality what is it, and why value it? 1. Why do we care about it? 2. Charles Taylor - Politics of equal dignity - Politics of difference Issue: whether parliament can legitimately criminalize the mere possession of marijuana and attach a penalty of imprisonment (strictly about drug trafficking) - It violates Canadian charter rights under section 7 - Levine freedom fighter of marijuana possession and Caine both convicted for marijuana - It says possible imprisonment Caine argued that it violated his section 7 rights and Levine argued that the criminalization of something that is central to his chosen lifestyle was violated - Section 7: idea is that you have a right not to be deprived of your liberty and security of a person, but if that deprivation is in accordance with the fundamental justice it is acceptable. Limitation is built in whatever the court deems to be fundamental justice - Section 1 means is that when we talk about rights in Section 7, they are never absolute - The fact that section 7 has such internal limits provided by the principles of fundamental justice - Caines argument: harm principle is a principle of fundamental justice under section 7, if that is true, since personal use of marijuana does not harm others attaching a penalty of imprisonment makes it a violation of my fundamental justice. - Malmo-Levines argument: concentration on personal lifestyle choice the issue is imprisonment we are thinking of negative freedom he was trying to u